Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Senator Cantwell for up to 10 minutes, Senator Ricketts for up to 5 minutes, Senator Moreno for up to 15 minutes.

Since Senator Cantwell is not here, I will go ahead and get my program rolling.

Mr. President, in the last several weeks, we have witnessed some terrible tragedies in Minnesota that involved law enforcement operations and the loss of life. We should all continue to pray for the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

As a former Governor, I know that when there is an officer-involved shooting, there is always an investigation to determine whether the shooting was justified, and there will, indeed, be multiple investigations into these shootings.

I also know that as a former Governor and having had the State patrol of Nebraska report to me, that our law enforcement officers are dedicated professionals, women and men who put their lives on the line to keep us safe, and they will do a great job for us in investigating what could be done better.

The Department of Homeland Security should take this opportunity to review its policies and procedures because of this investigation to determine if there are areas to improve upon.

One of the areas I think they will define is that there could be better cooperation with the local law enforcement. However, this is not the fault of ICE or Customs and Border Protection; this is the fault of the mayor who is not allowing his administration to work with ICE, for example, to apprehend criminal illegal aliens who are in their jails and forcing them to go out on the streets to apprehend these folks. And they are not providing the sort of crowd control that would allow protestors to exercise their rights and keep them safe and stop them from interfering with law enforcement operations.

So the Democrats are holding up the Department of Homeland Security bill. Ironically, because of the continuing resolution that we passed, we are funding ICE with more money than we would have otherwise if we just passed the regular Homeland Security bill because Republicans are working on fiscal restraint.

Also ironically, they actually can't get at the Agency they are mad at. ICE is fully funded for the next 3 years because of the reconciliation bill we passed last year. So Democrats really can't impact the funding of the Agency that they are unhappy with.

Now, they have various demands that they have with regard to this, and again, some of these demands are already addressed in the Homeland Security bill. For example, they want body cameras. There is actually funding for body cameras in the Homeland Security bill if the Democrats would join us in passing it.

There is also funding for deescalation procedures. Presumably, Democrats would want that. There is also funding for an inspector general. Presumably, Democrats would think that was a good idea. All of these things that are in the Homeland Security bill, the Democrats would just work with Republicans to pass it, but they are not doing so.

They have some demands, like better cooperation with local law enforcement. Well, that is something that we would like too. We would like to see it in sanctuary cities that are blocking our Federal law enforcement officers from apprehending illegal immigrant criminals who are in their jails.

Work with us to be able to allow us to do that. That would be great-- I am sure the ICE members are saying to themselves. So that cooperation would be wonderful. In fact, that is the key. I see it in my home State, that our local law enforcement, our county sheriffs, they don't do ICE's job for them, but they do cooperate to be able to get criminal illegal aliens into the custody of ICE and also provide security to make sure that law enforcement is not interfered with and that protesters can have their ability to exercise their rights in a safe way.

One of the other demands that they have is for no masks. And again, talking to local law enforcement in Nebraska and my own experience with Nebraska State Patrol, I know that typically our law enforcement officers wear a badge, a name, but in special operations, that is not always the case, that we see that masks are necessary to protect the identities of our law enforcement officers.

Far-left radical people are using face recognition software or use that to identify law enforcement officials and then dox them. That is a risk. In fact, we have seen it in Nebraska. I was talking to one of my county sheriffs about one of his deputies who was doxed; his name and address, his children's names were published on the internet and even going so far as to

publish his parents' names and addresses in different city. This is just pure intimidation.

I know that when we have drug interdiction programs, we want our officers to wear masks because, again, the cartels want to intimidate our law enforcement officers into not doing their jobs. This is something we have to be worried about.

If the left continues to villainize our law enforcement officers who are there to keep us safe, it will make the job less attractive. It will be hard for us to track the right kind of people we want to be able to fill those positions in law enforcement. It is absolutely appropriate in certain circumstances to wear a mask.

In fact, in some operations, it is a safety issue. If we are having our law enforcement officers, for example, go into a residence where they know there is a criminal and they are using, say, an ordinance to do that, the mask actually helps protect them. So there are times and circumstances where that is appropriate.

Certainly, protecting our law enforcement officers from malicious actors who want to intimidate them is important. It is a time to make sure we are keeping our law enforcement officers safe and making sure we continue to have people--brave women and men--who want to step up and do that job.

One of the other things that our Democrat colleagues want is to end administrative warrants. A little history: Administrative warrants were originally passed in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, so they have been around for nearly 75 years. Getting away from that would bring our law enforcement operations with regard to illegal immigrants in this country to a halt. This is an important way that we actually get to deport the people who are here illegally.

So that is a nonstarter. We can't slow down the system. Yet we just saw under the Biden administration an open border policy and 10.5 million illegal entry attempts into the United States.

The President has now brought those down 95 percent and, since April 2025, has stopped releasing illegal immigrants into our country. That is progress. But I believe the President was hired to address the issue Joe Biden created. So we need to give the right tools to our law enforcement officers to be successful.

I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with the White House and Senate Republicans to come up with a reasonable compromise based on common ground and to make sure that we are funding Homeland Security.

That funding runs out Friday at midnight, and if Democrats allow this to happen, it won't impact ICE operations, but what it will do is interrupt FEMA. We just had a major winter storm on the east coast and parts of the South. FEMA will be interrupted if Department of Homeland Security is not getting funded.

Our TSA agents who help make sure we get around the country safely through our airports, they will stop getting paid. That could potentially lead to slowdowns at airports. The Coast Guard will stop getting paid. Our heroes who keep us safe on our oceans and rescue us when we need it, these are all the things Democrats will be putting at risk if they don't fund Homeland Security. And, of course, any continuing resolution will just mean that the Democrats are funding ICE to a greater degree than they would otherwise.

So, again, I encourage my Senate Democratic colleagues to work with the White House and Senate Republicans on a reasonable compromise. And one more thing, if we cannot fund Homeland Security, I urge my Senate Democrats to not go on all the codels they are supposed to be going on starting on Friday.

We need to stay here and get it fixed. We need to get Homeland Security funded.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to note that the House, earlier today, passed a series of appropriations bills that will now be sent to the President's desk that will allow us to continue to fund our Agencies. And that is good news. It represents 11 of the 12 appropriations bills that we pass every year.

I want to thank our Republican leader for bringing these bills to the floor. I want to thank our chair of the Appropriations Committee Susan Collins and Ranking Member Patty Murray for their work to be able to get that done. This is important work.

One of the reasons I came to the U.S. Senate was to be able to help bring fiscal responsibility. As Governor of Nebraska, my budget grew at 2.8 percent per year, on average, across 8 years. That demonstrates the sort of fiscal responsibility you find in States like Nebraska. It is part of our ``Nebraska Solutions, Ready for America'' is bringing that sort of fiscal responsibility here. It was sorely lacking under the Biden administration in Washington, DC.

In 2019, the Federal Government, broadly speaking, spent $4.4 trillion, and we had a $900 billion deficit. Under Joe Biden's leadership, by 2024, that spending had grown to $6.8 trillion and a $1.9 trillion deficit, more than doubling the deficit, a 55-percent increase over those 5 years--a 55 percent-increase over 5 years in that spending.

In 2025, the deficit had declined by 9 percent. Now, we still have a long way to go. We have to get that spending under control, and that is why this appropriations process is so important.

The way we get our spending under control is by bringing appropriations bills to the floor of the Senate and giving us, as Senators, the opportunity to offer amendments and to vote on those bills.

Under the previous majority Democrat leadership, that did not happen. Though the Appropriations Committee was doing its work and passing appropriations bills out of committee--last year, 11 out of 12; the year before that, 12 out of 12--the previous Democratic majority leader would not bring those bills to the floor and, in fact, in some cases, brought the bills after the end of the fiscal year.

Instead, what were we forced to do? We were forced to pass continuing resolutions. Those continuing resolutions are terrible. They are basically just taking the budget and continuing to spend money at the recklessly high levels we saw under the Biden administration.

But it also undermined our national defense because when you pass continuing resolutions, the military cannot do long-term planning. And we are in a very dangerous world right now. We know that communist China wants to supplant us as the world leader. We see a war of aggression by Russia. We see Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, funding groups like Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and we see North Korea continuing to launch missiles.

National defense is very important to deterring our adversaries. Yet we passed 13 continuing resolutions under the Biden administration. Now, under the Trump administration, with Republicans in charge of the Senate, we are bringing these bills to the floor. We are passing and getting them done. We still have to get to Homeland Security.

I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work quickly with what they want to see in that bill to negotiate and get that bill done. This is important, too, because Homeland Security is what we fund our FEMA out of, right? So there are going to be disruptions to FEMA if we don't get this done. We just had a deadly snowstorm on the east coast, and that will disrupt those FEMA payments if the Democrats can't come to some sort of solution on what they want so we can pass Homeland Security.

Homeland Security is also how our TSA folks get paid, people who help us make sure we can fly safely around this country. It is how our Coast Guard gets paid. Again, it is important for our national defense. So all these things are wrapped up in Homeland Security, which is why it is important to get that 12th and final bill done.

I, again, want to compliment the House for passing these bills, compliment the Appropriations Committee here in the Senate, compliment our Majority Leader Thune for getting this done. We have 11 out of 12 done. That is 96 percent of the funding of our discretionary Agencies. Getting that done is an important step forward and getting back on track to fiscal sanity in this Nation. It is sorely needed. Republicans are delivering on that here in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today, we heard about an offer from the minority leader. It shows just how unserious he and the Democrats are. That offer is full of horse hockey. It has things in it that Republicans cannot accept, and he knows it.

My colleague from Michigan, the Democrat from Michigan, was just talking about power because that is what it is about. He mentioned power.

A number of other folks have talked about leverage. They need to have this shutdown for leverage. A number of Democrats have said this.

But what I am here today to talk about are people; not leverage, not power--people--air traffic controllers.

These are letters that I have received from air traffic controllers-- handwritten letters--that are talking about what they are going through right now because of the minority leader's shutdown. Let me just read you some of these.

My wife suffers from a chronic autoimmune disease that

without her medication would cripple her. Our monthly copay

for her specialty medication is $2,800 a month. We have less

than 2 weeks before her next round of medication is due. Our

situation is not sustainable even with pulling money from our

savings.

That was from one of our air traffic controllers in Nebraska.

Here is another one:

Each shutdown gets harder than the last. The mental stress

of the unknown gets harder each time. With my growing family

and medical bills for my family, it gets harder every time.

Both of my children have neurobiological disorders that

require constant monitoring and medical care. I take pride in

my job and the service we provide here at Omaha Approach

control. As a patriot and veteran, I take my Federal oath

. . . seriously. I will always continue to do my job [and]

keep the skies safe and expeditious.

Here is another one:

Myself and my family, to include my 3-year-old daughter,

are struggling to make ends meet. I now have to decide

between putting food on the table, paying my mortgage, paying

[my] car note, and many other things . . . I need to survive.

Are the Democrats deaf? Do they not hear from the people who are put in these situations?

This is their shutdown. This is their Biden budget they are not voting for. They voted for this 14 times over the last 19 months, and now they won't because their far-left wing tells them not to. We have patriots here who are suffering.

Why don't they show some of the courage that these people are and stand up to the far-left wing and vote for this bill so at least the people who are working can get paid? Is that so much to ask--that we pay the people who are actually trying to keep the skies safe?

A Democrat staffer was earlier quoted as saying we are going to do this ``until planes start falling from the sky.'' Well, folks, we already heard that the FAA is going to cut back 10 percent this week on the number of flights because of safety concerns.

But it is the people--the air traffic controllers and our law enforcement and everybody else who is working in a Federal job who is not getting paid--who are paying the price for the minority leader's shutdown.

I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 467, S. Res. 468, and S. Res. 469.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, October 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed on October 23 ripen at 11:35 a.m. I further ask that the Senate recess following the cloture vote on the Pratt nomination, until 2:15 p.m., to allow for the weekly conference meetings; and that at 2:20 p.m., if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Pratt nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session of the Senate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

The government is shut down today, and the responsibility lies squarely on the minority leader and the Democrats. In fact, you can call it his shutdown.

Republicans have offered a clean continuing resolution that would keep government open to allow us to continue working on the appropriations process, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called foul. Somehow this is unfair that we ought to have a negotiation. In fact, they are demanding more than a trillion dollars in new spending to be able to keep the government open for just 7 weeks.

They want money for illegal immigrants to get healthcare. They want more subsidies for the pandemic-era insurance. They want to end the rural healthcare fund that Republicans put in place for our rural hospitals. They demand all of this, saying the clean continuing resolution that we have offered is not sufficient.

Hypocrisy. This is hypocrisy.

Thirteen times in the Biden administration Democrats voted for a continuing resolution. Four times they have voted for this exact level of spending; this budget, four times in the last 18 months.

In fact, I have got a chart here that shows the percentage of Democrat Senators who supported these continuing resolutions, and you can see the numbers are almost 100 percent all the way across. And when it is not 100 percent, it is 98 percent. The minority leader himself voted for this very continuing resolution four times in a row before this case. Hypocrisy.

They are putting these unreasonable, radical-left demands in front of us instead of keeping government open.

Let me share with you a quote from our minority leader. In 2013, he said:

What if I persuaded my caucus to say, I'm not going to pay

our bills unless I get my way? It is a politics of idiocy, of

confrontation, of paralysis.

Further, the minority leader said on January 24, 2024:

Passing the CR, of course, will prevent a harmful and

unnecessary government shutdown. No reasonable Member on

either side--Democrat or Republican--wants a government

shutdown.

Both sides recognize that a government shutdown would mean crushing delays to veterans programs; delays to nutrition programs for women, infants, and children; delayed benefits for our military; and so much more.

Now, as I mentioned, the Democrats have said this is about healthcare, but let me read you a quote from the junior Senator from Connecticut. He said, when talking about healthcare, that ``there is a time and a place to debate healthcare . . . but not when the funding of the Federal Government, and all the lives that are impacted by it, hang in the balance.''

The hypocrisy of the minority leader of the Democrats is breathtaking. It is stunning.

During the Biden administration, they were happy to pass continuing resolutions--happy to. And, in fact, when given the very same continuing resolution, they voted yes on it four times in a row. Now they say no for partisan political reasons, driven by their radical leftwing.

And, again, they say they want to make this about healthcare. How disingenuous. First of all, let's examine the COVID subsidies that they want. First of all, they are the COVID subsidies. These are pandemic subsidies meant for a pandemic.

Folks, news flash: The pandemic has been over for 4 years. The Democrats

were the ones who set the expiration date on it. And the Democrats, if they were so concerned about this, had all of last year to bring it up and address it and extend it, once again, if they had chosen to. They chose not to.

All of a sudden, crying about these subsidies now, just smacks of hypocrisy.

And as I just read you, the junior Senator from Connecticut's remark, when it suited them before, they didn't want to talk about healthcare when they were talking about continuing resolutions and government shutdowns.

Folks, this shutdown does mean that folks in my home State of Nebraska could see services diminish. It could mean that, for example, Social Security offices may be understaffed--Social Security checks are going to go out, but services may be diminished. Women and children will not be able to enroll in the WIC Program. The person who is supposed to help with IRS questions is not available. National parks may be closed. All these services may be degraded and all because the Democrats are holding the American public and Nebraskans in my State hostage for their radical-left demands.

The Democrats should do what they have done 13 times in the Biden administration, vote for a continuing resolution. Help us continue our work on appropriations because that is the way the system is supposed to work.

We have already passed three bipartisan appropriations bills. The Appropriations Committee has more bipartisan bills ready to work on.

This can all be over if the Democrats will simply vote for a continuing resolution that they have already voted yes on four times over the last 18 months and 13 times during the Biden administration.

If the American public is looking for answers, they have to look no further than the Democrats to find out who is responsible for this. Republicans have offered this continuing resolution and have voted for it. And, in fact, three Democrats have voted for the continuing resolution, including an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

So we will continue to do our part by voting for this continuing resolution and by continuing to put it up to give the Democrats a chance to get government back open so we can continue the people's business and work on these appropriations bills, which is what we are supposed to be doing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 13 years ago, an inspired and patriotic 18-year-old by the name of Charlie Kirk launched a political organization. He wanted to identify, train, and organize students to engage in American politics. His dynamism, his tenacity, and his convictions helped inspire a generation.

Charlie Kirk was participating in the very American act of political dialogue when he was assassinated. He was a husband, a son, a father-- had two little children--and he was murdered in broad daylight. It is horrifying. It is very disheartening not only for me but I know many young people.

Tragically, it is all too common. Charlie Kirk isn't the only political figure to be impacted by violence. In recent years, he has just been added to the list of people like Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Congressman Steve Scalise, Minnesota House speaker Melissa Hortman, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and, of course, President Donald Trump.

No matter our political beliefs, all of us should be able to affirm a simple truth: that violence against political figures is unacceptable. It is actually anti-American, period. It is an attack upon our very values. It is an attack upon our Republic.

Our level of sympathy should not depend on the political views of the person who violence has been perpetrated against. Our level of outrage should not depend on the political views of the victim or the perpetrator.

In our great country, we settle disagreements with ballots, not bullets. The way to combat speech you don't like is with more speech, not less speech. This makes us better, sharper, and more American. That is what Charlie Kirk was doing when he was assassinated.

It might seem unnecessary to say these things in the wake of an assassination, but the tragic reality is that not every American believes what I just said; not everybody believes these statements are true. A recent YouGov poll found that only 72 percent of Americans said that political violence is always wrong, and 11 percent said that political violence can sometimes be justified. Eleven percent of people think that it is justifiable to commit political violence. That number shocks the conscience. Let that sink in. The people who believe that are siding with the bad guys.

We must reverse this trend. We must make sure that political violence isn't normal, that it is not accepted. Each of us has a role to play in that. Each of us can be a part of restoring American civic virtue.

We need to focus on what we know to be good and true. Let's spend more time in prayer. Let's spend more time outdoors rather than on our phones or our devices. Let's spend more time getting to know our neighbors and investing in our community. Let's relearn civil discourse. Civil discourse sharpens our arguments and makes us better, and it is better for our communities. It is what makes us human and what makes us American. The civil discourse in our great Republic is what makes us great.

There is no time to waste, and we all have a role.

God bless Charlie Kirk, his wife Erika, and their children. May Charlie rest in peace.

Now, Mr. President, I would like to say a prayer not just for Charlie but for our entire country.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me

beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of

righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of

death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me; thy rod and

thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine

enemies: Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth

over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of

my life: And I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the loss of a man who had a great impact on the city of Chicago, the Chicago Cubs, and my family.

Ryne Sandberg was the greatest second baseman to ever play for the Cubs. He came to the Cubs in 1981 as part of a trade where the Phillies sent Larry Bowa to the Cubs, and Dallas Green insisted on Ryne Sandberg being a part of that trade because he had seen him play.

From the get-go, Ryne Sandberg made an impact on the Chicago Cubs. Just a couple of short years later, in 1984, Ryne Sandberg led the Cubs to their first playoff appearance since the 1945 series. It was an MVP season for him. He had 19 home runs, and that was just the beginning of a fantastic career.

I was just getting to Chicago around that time, and that season is what made me a Cubs fan. I recall going to many games and watching Ryne Sandberg play. He was one of the best second basemen in the game. He set

records for home runs by a second baseman, for fielding percentage--96 consecutive games without an error. The man could do it all.

Throughout his tenure at the Cubs, he did a fantastic job. In fact, in 1984, who can forget the game--with all due respect to my colleagues from Missouri--in 1984, he hit a home run in the 9th inning to make sure that we had extra innings in that game against the St. Louis Cardinals and then again in the 10th to beat them. That was the kind of competitor that Ryne Sandberg was.

Throughout his career, he got a lot of hardware. He went to the All- Star game 10 times, 9 Golden Gloves, 7 Silver Slugger Awards. All of these accolades reflected the kind of person he was and are one of the reasons why Ryne Sandberg is a Hall of Famer. There was a statue of him in Wrigley Field for his contributions to the Cubs and to the game of baseball. Ryne was just synonymous with the Cubs while he was playing, and he was the kind of baseball player you were proud of. He didn't say much, but when he did, people listened.

But as great a baseball player as he was, the man was even better. Ryne Sandberg was the type of player you were proud to have on your team. He was a man of integrity. He did what he said he was going to do, worked hard, was tenacious, was great in the clubhouse. He was a player, a coach, an ambassador for us. He gave back to the community, whether it was through Cubs charities or his own Ryno kids foundation, where he helped sick kids stand up to cancer. All of those things he did to give back to the community.

He was one of those people that was just a pleasure to be around.

Somebody who understood the importance of the game but also knew the people were more important.

So, now, Ryne Sandberg is playing that eternal baseball game up in the sky, but his legacy will live on here. Countless fans will go to Cooperstown, read about his baseball exploits.

But his family--his wife Margaret, 5 kids, 11 grandkids--and all the folks in the Cubs organization know how Ryne Sandberg was a man that was more than just a baseball player. He was the kind of man that was an example for all of us in this country, who played America's pastime but knew the values of America meant taking care of our fellow citizens.

Ryne will be missed, and I hope we can all reflect upon what he meant to the game, to the Cubs, and this country as an example of how we should all be.

Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee ON ARMED SERVICES

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

committee ON FINANCE

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

committee ON FINANCE

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

committee ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. This has been a redline for decades, going back to President Clinton.

The reason is because the results would be catastrophic. It would create an existential threat to our allies and partners in the region, such as Israel. Even worse, it would create a threat to our heroic servicemembers, at a time when Iran and its proxies have already shed blood and have that blood on their hands.

It would trigger a regional arms race, as countries threatened by Iran's persistent malign aggression seek their own nuclear deterrent. And it would lead to an even more assertive and aggressive Iran that would be emboldened

by its perceived security guarantees that come with a nuclear weapon.

That is why Israel's recent military campaign against Iran, which culminated in successful airstrikes ordered by President Trump on Iran's key nuclear facilities, is so important. Iran is now as weak as it has ever been since the 1980s, probably weaker. The strikes have delayed Iran's path to a nuclear weapon by a few years.

But in order to seize this moment, the United States and our allies must impose maximum pressure to the highest extent possible to force Iran to permanently and verifiably end its nuclear program, including its capacity to enrich uranium. This is why the snapback of U.N. sanctions is so important.

Ten years ago, Iran made commitments under JCPOA, including reducing its enriching of uranium and its uranium stockpile, limiting the enrichment of uranium and its centrifuges, and allowing intrusive monitoring. As a result, the U.N. passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA.

In exchange for Iran's compliance, it provided for the eventual termination of all previous U.N. sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program after 10 years. It also sunset U.N. arms restrictions on Iran after 5 years and U.N. prohibitions on Iran's missile and drone activities after 8 years, both of which have now expired.

However, even before the prohibitions ended, Iran was blatantly violating them, sending suicide drones to Russia and weapons of terror to its proxies, like Hamas and the Houthis. These sanctions should not have been allowed to expire in the first place, especially when the price was destruction of European cities and the lives of American citizens threatened by Iranian weapons.

Under 2231, any signatory to the JCPOA--which includes the UK, France, and Germany--can trigger the snapback of these waived sanctions and restrictions if Iran is in ``significant non-performance of [its] commitments under the JCPOA.'' Not only has Iran blatantly violated these commitments, but it has done so repeatedly for 6 years, all without consequences from the U.N.

On top of that, in June, the IAEA, the world's nuclear watchdog, for the first time in two decades, declared that Iran had failed to comply with its IAEA safeguard obligations.

And how did Iran respond? By threatening Director General Grossi and effectively kicking out the IAEA's remaining inspectors and booting them out of the country.

From breaching the cap on its stockpile of uranium and enriching to 60 percent, to expanding its nuclear facilities, Iran has trampled on its obligations under the JCPOA.

So where does that leave us? The West has 87 days before we lose our ability to snap back tough U.N. sanctions on Iran. That opportunity permanently expires on October 18. But the real deadline is much sooner. The snapback process takes at least 30 days to fully complete.

Adding to the urgency, Russia is set to take over as President of the U.N. Security Council in October. This would allow Russia to use its position to delay the process and run out the clock. Iran knows this. Just yesterday, Iran held talks with Russia and communist China to discuss preventing the activation of the snapback. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Our European allies have said that they are prepared to trigger snapback by the end of August if no firm, tangible, and verifiable nuclear commitments from Iran are in place. This is being done in coordination with the Trump administration, which continues to pursue diplomatic talks with Iran.

I commend our allies for setting a deadline; however, this path is under a timeline that leaves little room for error. Unsurprisingly, the Iranian regime is resorting to its longstanding play book to delay, to delay, to delay and prevent snapback from happening.

Later this week, the Iranians are scheduled to meet with the E3 in Istanbul. There are rumors that discussions could center on under what conditions the E3 would postpone the snapback. But today, I stand to urge our European friends to hold the line and not to bend to Iranian threats or be fooled by Iranian assurances.

After 10 years, Iran does not need more time; it needs more pressure. A window now exists to completely change the trajectory of the Middle East for the better, but that window will close unless we convince Iran that its nuclear weapons program will never be tolerated, period. That is why this resolution urges the E3 to snap back sanctions as soon as possible. We must not let Iran off the hook.

At this point, I would certainly love to hear from my esteemed colleague from Idaho.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Idaho's remarks because they are spot-on with regard to what is going on here.

Under previous administrations like the Obama administration and the Biden administration, the strategy was to try to buy off Iran, to try to give them enough money to be our friend. And that is a failed policy. It has been demonstrated to be a failed policy.

Under the Trump administration's first term, where they applied maximum sanctions, they were able to take Iran's foreign reserves down from $122.5 billion to under $14 billion. When that happened, Iran did not have the money to be able to fund terrorist organizations like the Houthis or Hamas or Hezbollah. When the Biden administration came in and opened up the valves for them to get their oil money again, that is when we saw this problem reoccurring.

To my colleague's point, if you look at what is going on, the enrichment

they are doing right now is not for civilian nuclear programs. Mr. President, 23 countries in this world today have civilian nuclear energy programs, and what they do is they get their enriched uranium from other sources; they don't enrich it themselves. This allows them to have a civilian program. This is what Iran needs to go to. They cannot be allowed to have an enrichment program.

Maximum pressure is what works. It has been demonstrated to work in the first Trump administration. The appeasement of the Biden administration only encouraged them to fund terrorism around the world. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

So I believe that the European countries need to snap back these sanctions. This will help us in negotiations with Iran right now. As I mentioned, they are at their weakest state since the 1980s and may be weaker. So we must snap back these sanctions. This resolution will encourage our European allies to do that.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and as if in legislative session, the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 81. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the Ricketts amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my esteemed colleague from Kentucky has argued that we should pursue diplomacy, and, indeed, the Trump administration is pursuing diplomacy. However, the path he is arguing for right now was tried by the last administration and failed miserably.

What Iran respects is strength. While we are certainly not advocating regime change, what we are advocating is the use of policies that were effective in the first Trump administration. As I stated already, in the first Trump administration, by applying maximum pressure, the Trump administration was able to take Iran's foreign reserves down from $122.5 billion to under $14 billion. They may have had the desire to fund terrorism, but they did not have the ability to fund terrorism.

That is what these sanctions would continue to do, is put pressure on Iran. We may not be able to change the regime, but we can make them poor so they cannot fund terrorism.

Yes, by all means, we should continue diplomacy, but we should do it from a position of strength, which is why we are encouraging the European nations of France, Germany, and the UK to snap back those sanctions, to give us that strength going into these negotiations to convince Iran that there is no path for them to have a nuclear weapon. They must give up that plan; they must give up their enrichment.

Therefore, I will not modify my request.

Mr. President, this week is National Police Week.

Thank you to all of our law enforcement officers across this great country who work to keep our communities safe. In particular, thank you to the women and men who put on the blue in the State of Nebraska.

They face danger every day on our behalf, and they serve with courage.

I believe that Nebraska's law enforcement is a model for the rest of the Nation--their professionalism, their diligence. I will use the example of the Omaha Police Department. The Omaha Police Department has a homicide clearance rate of 100 percent. This is in a time when the national homicide clearance rate is under 60 percent. It is a testament to their excellence and dedication.

Omaha has also seen its murder rate decline in each of the last 4 years. Many cities saw the crime rate go up during COVID. What we see in Omaha now is that murder rate coming down in our great city.

In Nebraska, we back the blue. We support the women and men who protect our communities. It is one of the things that--I am very proud of Nebraskans and the way they do this. We give them the tools and the training, and we have strong laws. In Omaha, we have a prosecutor, Don Kleine, who prosecutes the criminals. We have a great police chief who enforces the law. That is one of the reasons why we are able to bring down, for example, the murder rate.

When I was Governor, we passed one of the most comprehensive law enforcement and public safety packages in our State's history.

We were able to create hiring bonuses for our police departments to be able to help attract and retain law enforcement officers. We increased the educational benefits, the retirement benefits.

We invested in our law enforcement training center to be able to do a better job training our officers. And we invested in our crime lab to be able to help our law enforcement agencies solve those crimes and be able to provide that justice to the victims of crime.

All this is because we, in Nebraska, support the blue. Americans want this Congress to support our law enforcement officers as well, just like we do in Nebraska.

I am also very proud of the work our law enforcement did when we had the southern border crisis under Biden. Joe Biden's lack of attention and terrible policies led to a flood of illegal drugs coming across our southern border.

Law enforcement agencies like the Nebraska State Patrol stepped up to be able to interdict those drugs. In fact, in my year as Governor, Nebraska State Patrol was able to take twice as much methamphetamine, 3 times as much fentanyl, and 10 times as much cocaine as they had done just 2 years prior because of the open border policies of the Biden administration and what that allowed, those illegal drugs in. But our law enforcement stepped up to keep our community safe.

Here, in the U.S. Congress this year, we passed the HALT Fentanyl Act. That will create stronger penalties and make sure that fentanyl is listed as a schedule I drug. When you have stronger penalties, you are going to have tougher sentencing and less fentanyl in your streets. That is important because we, in Nebraska, have seen the tragedies of fentanyl overdoes.

Taryn Lee Griffith was a young mom whose life was taken because she took a pill that was laced with fentanyl. These are the stories that we want to end. We have got to make sure our young people are not being killed by the scourge of fentanyl.

I will continue to work with President Trump to secure our border to

give some relief to our law enforcement officers across this country so that they don't have to continue to see stories and tragedies like Taryn Lee Griffith.

We have got to make sure we are supporting our law enforcement officers. I will continue to fight to give our law enforcement officers the tools they need. I co-led the Back the Blue Act, which would increase the penalties for those criminals who are targeting law enforcement officers and give law enforcement other tools to protect themselves.

My colleague from North Dakota was just talking about the Thin Blue Line Act, and I am a cosponsor of that as well. Senator Cruz introduced that bill.

We need to make sure we, in the Congress, are doing what we can to support our law enforcement officers.

During this Police Week, we also recognize those officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. Ross Bartlett was a police officer from Ceresco, NE, Police Department. He lost his life in the line of duty.

His cruiser was rammed by a driver who allegedly was distracted while texting and came into the shoulder. He was killed last year.

This week, his family is in Washington, DC, as part of Police Week, and they rented an Airbnb in Maryland. When the owner of that Airbnb discovered why they were here--and by the way, that owner is a Capitol Police officer--when that Capitol Police officer found out why they were there, he comped their entire stay this week at that Airbnb.

That is the demonstration of the brotherhood and sisterhood among law enforcement officers, and it is one of the stories that all too often gets overlooked of how our law enforcement officers take care of each other as well as take care of our communities.

We recognize the loss of the Bartlett family and honor Ross Bartlett for his service and sacrifice to the community of Ceresco and our State of Nebraska.

During Police Week, I encourage everyone in Nebraska and across the country to say thank you to our law enforcement officers. These women and men protect our communities and sacrifice much for us. Say thank you this week and every week throughout the year and recognize and honor what they do for us.

I yield the floor.